CAUSES OF OCCUPATIONAL STRESS AMONG PUBLIC OFFICERS …

ISSN 2394-966X

International Journal of Novel Research in Life Sciences Vol. 7, Issue 1, pp: (14-27), Month: January - February 2020, Available at: www.noveltyjournals.com

Page | 14 Novelty Journals

CAUSES OF OCCUPATIONAL STRESS

AMONG PUBLIC OFFICERS IN

IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT, NAIROBI

COUNTY, KENYA

QUEENTER ANYANGO ONDIGO

MOUNT KENYA UNIVERSITY, THIKA, KENYA.

Abstract: This study sought to examine the causes of occupational stress among public officers in the department of

immigration. The study adopted Person – Environment Fit and Cognitive theories of stress. The study used cross –

sectional survey design. The target population of the study was 194 public officers from five work stations within

the department of immigration in Nairobi County. Systematic random sampling was employed to select 127 public

officers to be included in the study. Purposive sampling was used to select Section heads and administrators. A

questionnaire was used to gather information from the public officers while interview guide was used for key

informants’ who included sections heads and administrators. The data obtained was analyzed using descriptive

statistics where statistical techniques like frequencies, mean, standard deviation and percentages were utilized.

Validity of the research instrument and reliability were enhanced through a pilot study in two regional offices. The

presentation was done through charts and tables and other figures. The Statistical Package for Social Science

(SPSS) version 22 helped in data analysis. The study established that the major causes of occupational stress

included inadequate salary, low participation in decision making process, heavy workloads, lack of staff welfare

policies, favoritism, biasness and nepotisms in deployment and transfers, stagnation in one job group for a long

period of time (lack of career growth), working under pressure with tight deadlines and poor working conditions.

The study also recommended change of organizational policies to give individuals more control over their work

activities, develop support system, shared goals and directions, inclusion in decision making, team work and

respect for personal needs.

Keywords: Job Description, Job Security, Occupational Stress, Reduced Motivation, Staff Turnover, Workload.

I. INTRODUCTION

McGrath, Reid, & Boore (2003) state that when management pressure and organizational pressure occurs at work

occupational pressure is the end result. Some stressors at work include perceived lack of support by the organization,

inadequate or lack of resource to perform assigned task, lack of autonomy, low-confidence level and incompetence, poor

or lack communication and guidance at work, as well as low and inconsistent salaries or absent reward systems at work.

All these, are organizational and management issues that affect the individual negatively. A study conducted by Lee and

Wang (2002) established other sources of stress at work as personal responsibility and inadequate guidance and support at

work. They also reported that lack of communication and limited avenues of consultations as well as lack of resources or

limited materials increases mental tension. Their report also revealed that employees become stressed when there is

inadequate manpower at work or when they are forced to take risks to complete an assigned task. All these issues results

in institutional stress. Several studies that have been conducted in area has found that Organizations structure and climate

to a great deal hamper job performance among workers. A study conducted by Gichohi (2009) wanted to find out the

effect of stress on job satisfaction among employees at the Government press and found out that there was stress among

staff due to ambiguity, poor communication, unfair promotions, poor policies and poor pay. Similarly, a study by Gitongo

ISSN 2394-966X



(2011) on the correlation between job satisfaction and occupational stress at Kenya customs Administration and found out

that working for longer hours and handling of multiple tasks at once stressed employees. The concerns of career

development, working in shifts, insecurity concerns at work, unexpected overtime, workload, denied holidays, job

promotion, and job security characterizes the professional life in Immigration Department. Therefore, the current study

seeks to examine the factors influencing occupational stress in the department.

Colligan and Higgins (2005), in their study concluded that a number of factors contribute to workplace stress. Factors

such as having a toxic work environment, negative workload, isolation, role conflict, role ambiguity, lack of autonomy,

career development barriers, difficult relationships with supervisors or co-workers, managerial bullying, harassment, and

organizational climate. Ongori & Agolla (2008) in their research in Botswana found out that work overload, uncertainty

about the future, poor communication in organizations, insufficient resources and conflicts as the major stressors. The

study also revealed that these stressors could adversely affect the efficiency of organizations, increase employee turnover,

lower motivation and increased expenditure in health care cost, which in turn has a negative effect on corporate

performance. Other interesting sources of occupational stress are the work environment and institutional settings.

Sveinsdottir et al., (2006) noted that organizational and management attributes influenced stress related to work especially

among public servants (2006). They identified institutional setting and work environment as some of the organizational

and management attributes. Roberts (2005) observed that health workers perceived their responsibilities when it comes to

handling the anaesthetic patients as one of their major source of stress.

Kenya Immigration Department is faced with a lot of challenges that can in essence jeopardize job performance such as,

inadequate human resource capacity and relevant and up-to-date facilities to meet the increasing demands for Immigration

services. Kenya is surrounding by neighbouring countries that are often involved in crime armed conflicts like Uganda,

South Sudan, and Somalia. Also, the terrain along most parts along the border is not only unmanned and insecure but also

porous and difficult to patrol and control effectively. Therefore, the immigration department has to be vigilant with the

entry and exit of persons, document fraud, human trafficking smuggling, and organized crime using the available human

resources and facilities – it puts the staff under pressure as far as their performance is concerned (CBMM, 2011). There is

no inter-state connectedness along the border for immigration control and monitoring. Also, the integrated alien

management system is lacking in most facilities. There is also a lot of difficulties experienced by staff on the issuance of

entry permits to foreigners because they lack of a skills inventory to guide. Besides, there are inadequate legislation as

well as policy frameworks coupled with weak enforcement of the set policies and regulations that pose a lot of challenges

to immigration officers hence negatively affecting their operations (STM, 2008).

Evans (2002) identified six major stressors among public officers such as, job image, human resource system, intrinsic job

features, organizational control, reward systems, and leadership. He also recommended that there is need for organizations

to develop policies that focus on encouraging socialization and communications at workplace. On the other hand, Robert

Karasek (2002) conducted a study on job stress and revealed that most stressful jobs are those that rarely gives the

employees a chance to be involved in making decisions in the organization. As a consequence, these jobs place a high

psychological demand on the employee. There are several aspects that lead to occupational stress. However, this stress is

often complicated when workers feel that the organization, supervisors, and their colleagues is doing very little to support

them. Also, the situation is made worse when they perceive to be helpless or with little influence at work or when they

feel incapable of handling pressure and demands that comes with their work. According to ILO (2006), work stress is

recognized as one of the major challenges that influence not only the health of an employee but also that of the

organization in the world.

Additionally, Giga and Hoel (2003), found that the high rates of mergers, acquisitions, increasing economic inter

dependence among countries due to globalization, technological development and restructuring have changed the

organizational work over the last few decades, have resulted in time pressure, excessive work demand, role conflicts,

ergonomic insufficiencies and problematic customer relationships are all causes of stress. Currently, at the Immigration

department most of the services offered are online and since the launch of e- passports, e-visa, this systems requires high

standards of adherence of advanced technological devices which the public officers if not well trained on their use can

experience occupational stress especially due to the services they offer that are in high demand like a passport, visa,

permits among others. Even though most studies have paid attention on the relationship between the performance of an

individual at work and stress, many researchers have proposed a relationship between occupational performance and

ISSN 2394-966X



various measures of performance in the organization like efficient use of organizational resources, organizational

productivity, employee turnover, customer satisfaction, and quality objectives as well as attainment of goals at work

(Sayeed, 2001). An unhealthy organizational climate reduces the commitment and involvement of employees thus

affecting their performance negatively both at the individual and organizational level. In Kenya, work and stress

experience is not a new phenomenon.

Extreme levels of poverty, poor working conditions, political surprises and instability, and poor environmental conditions

expose Kenyans to experiences that result in stress (Musyoka, 2012). Ngeno (2007) notes that limited options force

employees in Kenya to contend with few opportunities when it comes to job promotions, heavy workload at work, denied

a seat at the decision-making table, and low and sometimes inconsistent salaries. The public sector in Kenya is

characterized by bureaucratic, hierarchical decision-making process, political influence, low acceptance rate of

performance contracts, and mismatch between resource allocation and need (Mutiga, 2006). In recent years, agencies in

the public sector in Kenya have undergone several reforms as well as undertaken drastic environmental changes. Some of

the popular reforms include the adoption of Rapid Result Initiative (RRI), Performance Appraisal System (PAS),

managerial reforms emphasizing performance improvement, external accountability, and cost-containment (Noblet &

Rodwell, 2009). These reforms, among others, continue to expose employees to unsurmountable pressure at work. The

need for organizations to be customer-oriented also piles a lot of pressure on employees as far as satisfying their

customers is concerned. Many organizations are adopting Information Communication Technology (ICT) as a means of

speeding up business transaction and efficiency. This ICT demands new skills and knowledge for efficient proactivity.

Studies show that ICT in places of work will increase efficiency, effectiveness, and productivity and it is the right

approach in the dynamic global world. However, it is also important to acknowledge that the adoption of information

technology in places of work also continue to accelerate pressure on the workforce (KNBS, 2007).

Kenya Immigration Department is one of the law enforcement agencies in the country mandated with controlling the entry

and exit of persons, issuance of travel documents, regulating residency and employment of non-Kenyans, Enforcing

Immigration and Citizenship Act and allied legislations, maintaining safe custody and retrieving of records and carrying

out research, collecting and analyzing data on various issues (SM,2013). The staffs of Immigration Department are

exposed to traumatic events as part of their occupation roles and what makes it unique with regard to stress is the

hazardous and stressful environment of investigations and arrests of Immigration offenders as well as manning porous

borders, and dealing with fraudulently acquired documents, the organizations work stressors, the perception of the public

and weak criminal justice system (SM, 2003). In Nairobi County, workload, working in shifts, unexpected overtime,

denied holidays, anxieties about insecurities at work, job security, career growth and development, and job promotion

characterizes the professional life in Immigration Department. The progression in service is neither structured nor linked

to training or corporate targets. The slow progression leads to stagnation of officers at one grade for many years (BBCM,

2005). Regardless of the causes of pressure, anxiety, and stress, they continue to negatively affect the employees’

efficiency. For instance, decreased job satisfaction, depression, and illness – the effects of stress – affect the employees’

performance and productivity, and ultimately, the department.

Immigration department is one of the law enforcement agencies charged with responsibility of monitoring and controlling

the movement of people in and outside the country, issuing travel documents, and regulating residence of foreign

nationals. Rotating shifts, long working hours, porous borders and exposure to life tragedies exert a heavy toll on public

officers and their families. Of late, the department of immigration is experiencing a lot of challenges amongst its staff

such as high divorce rates, suicide, high staff turnover, absenteeism, domestic violence, depression, Drug and substance

abuse, terminal illnesses such as cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure among others. Mugwere (2012) conducted a study

to establish the factors that led to occupational stress and its management at Colgate Palmolive and found out that

occupational stress is prevalent in the company. The study revealed that workers between the age of 25 and 35 years were

the most stressed while females were more stressed than males. For managers, Mugwere (2012) established that the major

cause of stress was time pressure and deadlines, responsibility without autonomy and thwarted ambition. However, there

is limited literature on the causes of occupational among public officers in the department of immigration and its

influence on job performance. It’s against this backdrop that the study sought to find out the causes of occupational stress

among employees in the immigration department so as to mitigate them and enhance service delivery in the department of

immigration.

ISSN 2394-966X



II. METHODOLOGY

This study adopted a cross – sectional survey design. Groves (2010) and Kothari (2004) all agree that a cross-sectional

survey is a research design in which a set of questions, for a set of issues being examined, (usually imbedded in an

instrument) are administered to a population (or a sample of the population) at one point in time. The study was carried

out at Immigration offices in Nairobi County since most of the functions of the department of immigration are centralized

and secondly Nairobi being the capital city of Kenya and the economic hub in East Africa region endeavours a lot of

challenges which Immigration staff has to deal with on a daily basis thus the need to document the causes of occupational

stress and their effects on job performance. The target population of this study was the public officers working in the

Department of Immigration in Nairobi County. The target population was 194 public officers which comprised of

administrators, head of sections, immigration officers, clerical and support staff. The administrators were chosen because

they are better suited to provide information on occupational stress affecting public officers working under them, and their

work performance as well as strategies required to address the stress-related challenges. The head of sections were

included in the sample since they not only assign but also supervise duties in their departments on a daily basis; they are

also responsible for evaluation of work performance. Immigration officers, clerical officers and support staff were

selected because they are the ones who carry out the activities of the department. Table 1 provides a summary of the

target population which was 194.

Table 1: Distribution of Target Population

Section Number

Administration 5

Foreign National Management 26

Passports 53

Border Management 103

Training and Research 7

Total 194

Stratified sampling technique was used in order to ensure that all the sections and cadres are represented. Systematic

sampling procedure was then be used to draw respective respondents/public officers from sections register. The

Administrators and head of sections were selected purposively. According to Mugenda and Mugenda (2007), purposive

sampling gives the researcher an opportunity of getting the required information from the relevant people. The

administrators and head of sections are suitable individuals to offer data on job performance of public officers as well as

approaches employed to address occupational stress in their respective sections. The number of public officers used in the

study was arrived at by the use of Krejcie and Morgan (1970) table for determination of sample size. In this respect the

goal was to obtain a representative sample in which the sample research data correspond to particulars, characteristics and

experiences of the entire population (Scott Smith 2013, Groves 2010 and Krejcie and Morgan 1970).

The table of Krejcie and Morgan (1970), Annex 1, provide a range of sample sizes of the population at precision (error

level) of 0.05%, with the target population of 194, the required sample size was 127. This study used questionnaires to

collect required data. Interview guide was also used to complement the process of data collection. Interview schedules

were used to collect more in depth information from key Informants. Before data collection, the questionnaires were

administered to a selected sample. This selected sample was similar to the actual sample which was not included in the

study. This helped the researcher in improving the quality of the questionnaire since incorporated the remarks as well as

recommendations from respondents resulting from the pre-testing.

Content validity focused on the degree at which the instrument adequately covers the research questions (Hair et al,

2006). Also, validity checks make sure that the research instrument is not bias as far as the lay out, format, and language

of the tool of collecting data is concerned (Kasomo, 2006). The team of experts from the department of Counselling

Psychology, Mount Kenya University authenticated the instruments. The internal consistency was measured using the

Cronbach Alpha method. The threshold for acceptance of the Cronbach Alpha coefficient was 0.7. Data was analysed

quantitatively and qualitatively. Quantitative data analysis included computation of descriptive statistics such as mean,

ISSN 2394-966X



percentages, and frequencies to describe characteristics of respondents, causes and effects of occupational stress among

public officers in the department of Immigration.

The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22 also helped in analysing quantitative data. Qualitative data

was collected through excerpts which were thereafter analysed using themes and subject contents. The researcher sought a

research permit from the National Commission of Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI) to conduct the study

after approval of the topic by the university. Principles of confidentiality and privacy of information and identity were

observed. Participant’s rights of free will, was not be interfered with including the right to withdraw from the research at

will.

III. FINDINGS

The study revealed that a majority of the respondents, 60.7% always liked working for the department of immigration,

35.9% indicated that they sometimes like working for the department, 0.9% indicated seldom while 2.6% indicated that

they do not like working for the department. The findings of the study implies that majority of the respondents were

confortable working for the department of immigration. However, a substansive number of the respondents indicated that

they sometimes like working for the department or do not like working for the department an indication that there exist

some level of occupational stress. The study found out that Work environments contributed substantively to occupational

stress. Inzofu (2016), indicated that poor working conditions affected the productivity of the employees in an

organization. Table 2 presents the participants response when asked about their work environment.

Table 2: Work Environment

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Always 29 24.2 24.4 24.4

Sometimes 70 58.3 58.8 83.2

Seldom 6 5.0 5.0 88.2

Not at all 14 11.7 11.8 100.0

Total

Not Responded

119

1

99.2

100.0

Table 2 above reveales that 58.8% are sometimes happy with their work environment while 24.4% are always happy with

their working environment. 11.8% are not happy at all with their working environment and only 5% are seldom happy

with their working environment. Its important to note that work enviroment is very important to an organization in

realising its vision and missio. For instance, for an employee to be efficient and productive in today’s job environment

means equipping employees with the right gear. This can be confirmed by the findings of a study by Lee, Eyraud, &

International Labour Office, 2008 which concluded that companies that don’t upgrade or ignore the necessity for tech

tools run the risk of diminished employee productivity. The partcipants asked were whether the department cared for its

employees, the response of participants is illustrated in Table 3 below.

Table 3: Department’s Care for Employees


Yes 46 38.3 39.7 39.7

No 44 36.7 37.9 77.6

Not sure 26 21.7 22.4 100.0

Total

Missing

116

4

96.7

100.0

From table 3 above it can be observed that 39.7% of the respondents indicated that the department cares for its employees,

while 37.9% indicated that the department does not care for its employees and 22.4% were not sure whether the

department cares for its employees. Cummulatively 60.3% indicated that the department never cares for its employees an

indication that occupational stress is prevalent in the department. From the study findings, it can be deduced that the

department of immigration do not care about their employees welfare, this is detrimental to the organizations productivity

since employees cannot be able to function properly if their needs and expectations are not met to their satisfaction. The

study sought the opinions of participants as to why they thought that the department never cared for its employees. The

findings are presented in Table 4.

ISSN 2394-966X



Table 4: Department’s Care for Employees

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Career growth 14 11.7 11.7 11.7

Family separations due to deployment to hardship

areas 10 8.3 8.3 20.0

Favoritism, Biasness, Nepotism 23 19.2 19.2 39.2

High workload 12 10.0 10.0 49.2

Lack of clear policies or staff welfare policies 16 13.3 13.3 62.5

Meagre salary 16 13.3 13.3 75.8

Not involved in decision making 14 11.7 11.7 87.5

Poor working conditions 15 12.5 12.5 100.0

Total 120 100.0 100.0

Table 4 illustrates that 19.2% of the respondents feels there is a lot of favoritism, biasness and nepotism when it comes to

transfers and deployments, 13.3% reported lack of clear policies on staff welfare, 13.3% reported mearger salary, 12.5%

reported poor working conditions 11.7% indicated lack of involvement in decision making process with a similar

percentage (11.7%) indicating lack of career growth, 10% indicated high workload while 8.3% indicated family

separations due to deployment in hardship areas. The study sought to establish whether the respondents had control over

their job performance, this is illustrated in Table 5.

Table 5: Control over Job Performance


Yes 35 29.2 30.2 30.2

No 81 67.5 69.8 100.0

Total

Missing

116

4

96.7

100.0

From table 5 above, majority of the respondents 69.8% indicated that they did not have control over their job with 30.2%

indicating that they had control over their job performance. However, its important to note that people might not have

control over their job performance all the time since the demand for delivery changes over time. For instance, in the

department of immigration, most of the services they offer are crucial to the public and their production is majorly

dependent on the number of applications recieved for example the number of passports issued and the time frame. Table

12 shows the response of partcipants when requested to indicate whether they work under pressure.

Table 6: Working under Pressure


Yes 71 59.2 60.7 60.7

No 46 38.3 39.3 100.0

Total

Missing

117

3

97.5

2.5

100.0

Table 6 indicates that 60.7% of the respondents works under pressure while 39.3% do not work under pressure. From the

analysis above, it can be concluded that majority of public officers in the department of immigration works under pressure

which in essence is detrimental to their health and productivity. These study findings are similar to Mukama and Omondi

(2010) who revealed that with excessive pressures, the job demands cannot be met, relaxation turns to exhaustion and a

sense of satisfaction replaces with the feelings of stress, motivation sheds away and the workers start losing interest in the

work and hence performance chart shows a negative trend which in turn affects the organizational productivity. Thus

study aimed to find out whether mismatch between organization demands and one’s abilities to meet these demands

increases stress levels at workplace. The findings are presented in Table 7.

ISSN 2394-966X



Table 7: Employees Ability


Yes 33 27.5 28.9 28.9

No 78 65.0 68.4 97.4

Sometimes 3 2.5 2.7 100.0

Total

Missing

114

6

95.0

5.0

100.0

Table 7 clearly observes that 68.4% of the respondents reported that they are not asked to do more than their abilities

permit whereas 28.9% responded to being asked to do more than their ability permits while a paltry 2.7% of the

respondents indicated that sometimes they are being asked to do more than their ability permits.

It’s worthy to note that occupational stress can occur when an individual is asked to do more than their ability permits.

This is in line with the study that was carried out by Abdi (2001) which observed that performance of individuals is

decreased when stress is caused by inability of individual to maintain a reasonable balance between family life and work

life as he/she has to spend a lot of time in his/her working. The study also sought to establish whether the participants

skills are utilized to their satisfaction. The findings are illustrated in Table 8.

Table 8: Skills Utilization


Yes 45 37.5 38.5 38.5

No 72 60.0 61.5 100.0

Total

Missing

117

3

97.5

2.5

100.0

It can be observed from Table 8 that 61.5% of the respondents indicated that their skills were not utilized to their

satisfaction while 38.5% responded that their skills are utilized to their satisfaction. The study also sought to find out

participants involvement in decision making process within the department of immigration. The findings are shown

inTable 9.

Table 9: Participation in Decision Making


Yes 27 22.5 23.3 23.3

No 82 68.3 70.7 94.0

Sometimes 7 5.8 6.0 100.0

Total

Missing

116

4

96.7

3.3

100.0

Table 9 reveals that majority of the respondents 70.7% never participated in decision making process, 23.3% participated

while 6.0% sometimes participated in decision making. From the analysis above it can be interpretated that decison

making at the department of immigration is not inclusive or rather it is more of a top bottom approach and therefore, the

employees are not adequately involved in decision making. This findings is similar to a research by Ngeno (2007) which

pointed out that employees in Kenya have to contend with low salaries, lack of involvement in decision making, heavy

workload, and few opportunities for promotion.

The study sought to find out the causes of occupational stress among public officers in the department of immigration.

Results are presented in Table 10 below. The study shows that majority of the respondents (18.3%) of the respondents

reported that stagnation in one job group caused occupational stress among public officers working at the department of

immigration, 16.7% reported biasness in transfers, 11.7% reported heavy workload, 10.8% reported deployment to

hardship areas, 9.2% reported meager salary with a similar number (9.2%) reporting depression resulting from work

environment, 7.5% indicated work pressure, 6.7% indicated poor working conditions and lack of staff welfare policies,

5.8% reported lack of career growth while 4.2% reported wrongful dismissals as a cause of occupational stress.

ISSN 2394-966X



These findings on Table 10 are similar to a research study conducted by Gichohi (2009) which found out that deployment

of human resource, routine work, poor relationship between employees, nepotism, job ambiguity, unfair promotion

policies, manager’s leadership styles, work pressures and poor working conditions contributed to occupational stress.

Table 10: Causes of Occupation Stress among Public Officers

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Heavy workload 14 11.7 11.7 11.7

Lack of career growth 7 5.8 5.8 17.5

Wrongful termination 5 4.2 4.2 21.7

Work pressure 9 7.5 7.5 29.2

Depression 11 9.2 9.2 38.3

Biasness in transfers 20 16.7 16.7 55.0

Family breakups/separation due to deployment to

harsh areas 13 10.8 10.8 65.8

Meager salary 11 9.2 9.2 75.0

Stagnation in one job group 22 18.3 18.3 93.3

Poor working conditions/lack of staff policies 8 6.7 6.7 100.0

Total 120 100.0 100.0

According to Manu (2016) causes of stress are numerous including work load, cuts in staff, change at work, long work

hours, lack of supervision, insufficient training, improper working conditions, too heavy responsibilities and poor

relations with colleagues. The study established that interpersonal relationships, insufficient resources, lower salaries,

heavy work, insecurity of job, high workload, time pressure, little control over job, insufficient job resources and under

staffing as the major sources of occupational stress in the department of immigration, this is similar to a study that was

conducted by Rehman et al., (2010). Table 11 captures the response of participants when asked whether inadequate salary

contributed to occupational stress.

Table 11: Inadequate Salaries


Strongly agree 58 48.3 48.3 48.3

Agree 41 34.2 34.2 82.5

Not sure 13 10.8 10.8 93.3

Disagree 4 3.3 3.3 96.7

Strongly disagree 4 3.3 3.3 100.0

Total 120 100.0 100.0

The findings as illustrated in Table 11 oberves that 48.3% strongly agreed that inadequate salary contributes to

occupational stress, 34.2% agreed with the statement, 10.8% were not sure while 3.3% diasgreed with the statement and a

similar number of respondents (3.3%) strongly disadgreeing with the statement. Table 12 presents the response of

participants to the statement that rigid rulles and rugalations causes occupational stress among public officers.

Table 12: Rigid Rules and Regulations



Agree 34 28.3 28.3 49.2

Not sure 37 30.8 30.8 80.0

Disagree 17 14.2 14.2 94.2


Total 120 100.0 100.0

Table 12 illustrates that 20.8% of the respondents strongly agreed that rigid rules and regulations caused occupational

stress, 28.3% agreed to the statement, 30.8% were not sure whether rigid rules and regulations is a cause of occupational

stress while 14.2% disagreed that rigid rules and regulations is a cause of stress.

ISSN 2394-966X



5.8% strongly disagreed that rigid rules and regulations is a cause of stress. Participants were asked to indicate their level

of agreement with the statement whether heavy workload contributed to occupational stress. The findings are as shown in

Table 13 below.

Table 13: Heavy workload



Agree 41 34.2 34.2 72.5

Not sure 16 13.3 13.3 85.8

Disagree 11 9.2 9.2 95.0


Total 120 100.0 100.0

Table 13 indicates that most of the respondents 38.3% strongly agreed that heavy workload is a major cause of stress at

the department of immigration while 34.2% agreed. 13.3% were not sure if heavy workload is a cause of stress. 9.2%

disagreed that heavy workload is a cause of stress and 5% strongly disagreed. Heavy workload would trigger anxienty or

frustration that might further interfere with employees job performance. This was confirmed by one of the key

informant.When asked the amount of workload and number of officers in his section, one of the key informants intimated

that they receive a lot of applications in a day, they open the offices very early in the morning, the applicants are very

many and they may not be able to receive the applications for all the applicants who turns up in a day. Furthermore, they

serve a very big region and they have very few officers who are overwhelmed due to the number of applications and tight

deadlines. Respondents were requested to state whether low participation in decision making contributed to occupational

stress. The results are illustrated in Table 14.

Table 14: Low Participation in Decision Making



Agree 35 29.2 29.2 67.5

Not sure 22 18.3 18.3 85.8

Disagree 15 12.5 12.5 98.3


Total 120 100.0 100.0

Table 14 shows that majority of the respondents (38.3%), strongly agreed that low participation in decision making,

29.2% agreed with the statement, 18.3% were not sure, 12.5% disagreed with the statement while 1.7% strongly

disagreed. The study sought to find out whether uncertainty in promotion caused occupational stress among public

officers in the department of immigration. This is shown in table 15.

Table 15: Uncertainty in Promotions



Agree 32 26.7 26.7 76.7

Not sure 14 11.7 11.7 88.3

Disagree 7 5.8 5.8 94.2


Total 120 100.0 100.0

The findings in Table 15 indicates that 50% of the respondents strongly agreed that uncertainity in promotion is a cause of

stress and 26.7% agreed. 11.7% of the respondents were not sure while 5.8% disagreed and another 5.8% strongly

disagreed that uncertainity in promotion is a cause of stress at the department. According Youngkang et al, (2014) role

ambiguity has been established to be an aspect of job dissatisfaction, influence of employee creativity and tendancy to

cause stress. Role ambiguity occurs when an individual has inadequate information about his role at work.

ISSN 2394-966X



This may reflect on clarity about work objectives, colleagues’ expectations and level of authority. Individuals may also

experience role ambiguity when they enter new situations such as, joining the organization or taking foreign assignments

(McShane et al. 2008).

Table 16: Role Ambiguity



Agree 26 21.7 21.7 42.5

Not sure 45 37.5 37.5 80.0

Disagree 16 13.3 13.3 93.3


Total 120 100.0 100.0

Table 16 indicates that majority of the respondents (37.5%) were not sure if role ambiguity is a cause of stress followed

by 21.7% of the respondents who agreed that role ambiguity is a cause of stress while 20.8% strongly agreed that role

ambiguity is a cause of stress. 13.3% disagreed that role ambiguity is a cause of stress while 6.7% strongly disagreed.

Table 17 shows the responses of participants to the statement that lack of clear job description contributes to occupational

stress among immigration staff.

Table 17: Clear Job Description



Agree 28 23.3 23.3 37.5

Not sure 20 16.7 16.7 54.2


Disagree 39 32.5 32.5 100.0

Total 120 100.0 100.0

Table 17 indicates that 14.2% of the participants strongly agreed that lack of clear job dscription at the department of

immigration contributes to occupational stress, 23.3% agreed with the statement, 16.7% were not sure whether lack of

clear job description is a cause of occupational stress, 13.3 strongly disagreed with the statement with a majority of

participants (32.5%) disagreeing with the statement. The study also revealed that majority of the public officers in the

department of immigration are allocated tasks that do not match there skills, this is shown in Table 18.

Table 18: My Job Matches my Skills



Agree 33 27.5 27.5 40.0

Not sure 26 21.7 21.7 61.7

Disagree 13 10.8 10.8 72.5


Total 120 100.0 100.0

Table 18 shows that 12.5% strongly agreed that the tasks allocated to them do not match their skills, 27.5% agreed with

the statement, 21.7% were not sure whether tasks allocated them match their skills where as 10.8% disagreed with the

statement and 27.5% strongly disagreed that tasks allocated them do not match their skills. In summary, majority of

respondents indicated that they have the necessary knowledge and skills to perform their job proficiently, however, jobs

allocated to them didn’t match their skills which in turn affected their productivity. Nonetheless, these skills helped them

to comply with job procedures, build a reputation for total customer satisfaction, complete quality work on time, use

modern information technology, handle multiple responsibilities effectively and use working hours optimally. The study

was also interested in finding out whether job security contributed to occupational stress among public officers working in

the department of immigration. The finding is illustrated in Table 19.

ISSN 2394-966X



Table 19: Job Security



Agree 22 18.3 18.3 30.0

Not sure 19 15.8 15.8 45.8


Disagree 41 34.2 34.2 100.0

Total 120 100.0 100.0

From Table 19, it can be concluded that 11.7% of the participants strongly agreed that lack of job security contributed to

occupational stress among public officers, 18.3% agreed with the statement, 15.8% were not sure while 20% of the

participants srongly disagreed with the statement and 34.2% disagreed with the statement.This is an indication that public

officers in the department of immigration are assured of their tenure bearing in mind that majority are permanent and

pensionable. The participants were asked whether they were comfortable with the promotion policies. Table 20 presents

the findings.

Table 20: Promotion Policies



Agree 6 5.0 5.0 10.0

Not sure 25 20.8 20.8 30.8


Disagree 41 34.2 34.2 100.0

Total 120 100.0 100.0

Table 20 indicates that 5% of the participants strongly agreed that they are comfortable with the promotion policies with a

similar number of participants (5%) agreeing with the statement. 20.8% of the participants were not sure whether they

were comfortable with the promotion policies, 35% strongly disagreed and 43.2% equally disagreed with the statement.

Cummulatively, 69.2% of the participants this is a substantive number an indication that there is need by the department

of immigration to review their promotional policies. The participants were also asked whether inconsistency in leadership

and lack of recognition also contributed to occupational stress, findings are presented in Table 21.

Table 21: Inconsistent Leadership and lack of recognition for achievement



Agree 39 32.5 32.5 67.5

Not sure 18 15.0 15.0 82.5


Disagree 14 11.7 11.7 100.0

Total 120 100.0 100.0

It can be conluded from Table 21 that inconsistet leadership and lack of recognition for achievement contributes to

occupational stress amongst immigration staff. This is so because 35% of the study participants strongly agreed with the

statement, 32.5% agreed, 15% were not sure whether it contributed to occupational stress, 5.8% strongly disagrees while

11.7% disagreed that inconsistent leadership and lack of recogition contributed to oaccupational stress among

immigration staff. Table 22 presents the responses of participants when asked whether they can quit working for the

department of immigration if they had another option.

Table 22: Staff Turn Over



Agree 19 15.8 15.8 34.2

Not sure 41 34.2 34.2 68.3


Disagree 20 16.7 16.7 100.0

Total 120 100.0 100.0

ISSN 2394-966X



Table 22 revealed that 18.3% strongle agreed that they can quit working for department of immigration when they are

given a chance, 15.8% agreed, 34.2% were not sure, 15% strongly disagreed while 16.7 % diasgreed with the statement.

From the analysis it can be confirmed that there is likely to be high staff turnover at the department of immigration

because cummulatively, 68.3% either strongly agreed, agreed or were not sure as to quiting their employment when given

an option. This is similar to the 2008 CIPD annual Recruitment, Retention and Turnover survey which cited stress of the

job or role as a key reason for employee turnover. In addition to the above costs of stress, it can also lead to higher rates of

accident and injury; this may be due to poor concentration, forgetfulness, reduced motivation or other stress related

mechanisms which in turn jeopardizes organizational productivity. Table 23 represents the participants’ response as to

whether occupational stress affects their motivation.

Table 23: Reduced Motivation



Agree 40 33.3 33.3 72.5

Not sure 21 17.5 17.5 90.0


Disagree 10 8.3 8.3 100.0

Total 120 100.0 100.0

From Table 23, it can be deduced that immigration staff suffers reduced motivation as a result of occupational stress.

Majority of the respondents (39.2%) strongly agreed that there is reduced motivation at the department of immigration

followed by 33.3% of the respondents agreeing with the statement, this is a strong indicator that occupational stress exists

in the department which in turn leads to poor performance. Moreso, 17.5% of the participants indicated that they ar not

sure, 8.3% disagreed and 1.7% strongly disagreed to the statement.

IV. DISCUSSIONS

The respondents were made up of males (43%) and females (57%). Majority of the respondents 80% were married, 15%

were single and the remaining 5% were either divorced or separated. The study revealed that majority of the respondents

(39.2%) were between 41-50 years which is an indication that most of the employees are mature enough to decipher the

issues of stress and performance of their work. 37.5% of the respondents were between the age 31-40 years and 22.5%

were above 50 years of age.

The study established that inadequate salary caused occupational stress among public officers, this is because majority

(48.3%) reported it as a cause of stress while 34.2% reported it not to be a cause of occupational stress. Some of the

causes of occupational stress reported were, rigid rules and regulations where 49.1% of the respondents agreed with the

statement while only 5.8% disagreed and another 20.6% were not sure whether it contributed to occupational stress.

Heavy workload was also reported by the majority (72.5%) as a cause of occupational stress, low participation in decision

making process was also reported as a cause of occupational stress whereby 67.5% of the respondents agreed. Uncertainty

in promotion was also reported by majority76.7% to contribute to occupational stress, no clear job description also caused

stress in the department of immigration where 37.5% respondents agreed with the statement. 40% of the respondents

indicated that the jobs allocated to then did not match their skills, inconsistent leadership and lack of recognition for

achievement also caused stress in the department. When asked whether when given a chance they would quit their jobs,

67.5% reported that they would quit given a chance.

V. CONCLUSIONS

The study revealed that some of the causes of occupational stress among public officers in the department include

inadequate salaries, rigid rules and regulations, low participation in decision making process, heavy workloads, lack of

staff welfare policies, favouritism, biasness and nepotisms in deployment and transfers, stagnation in one job group for a

long period of time (lack of career growth), working under pressure with tight deadlines, poor working conditions and

allocating them tasks that do not match their skills.

ISSN 2394-966X



VI. RECOMMENDATION AND SUGGESTIONS

The department of immigration can also change or remove the stress by redesigning jobs to reduce feeling of being

undervalued at workplace, unclear job roles, underutilized skills, work-home interface and job insecurity. They can also

change organizational policies to give individuals more control over their work activities, develop support system, shared

goals and directions, inclusion in decision making, team work and respect for personal needs. The department of

immigration should also come up with clear policies on deployments, transfers and promotion of her staff; this will help

in alleviating biasness, nepotism and favoritism that was reported by majority of respondents. A comparative study can

also be done among public officers working for the department of immigration in Urban Areas and their counter parts in

Rural Areas to bring out the different aspects and challenges being faced at various levels for better formulation of an all-

inclusive staff welfare policies.

REFERENCES

[1] Addley, K. (1997). Occupational stress: A practical approach. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.

[2] Ahsan, N., Z., Fie, G. & Alams, S.S. (2009). A Study of job stress on satisfaction amongvuniversity staff in

Malaysia: Empirical study. European Journal of Social Sciences, 8(1), 121-131

[3] Barsky, A., Thoresem, C., Warren, C. & Kaplan, S. (2004). Modelling negative affectivity and job stress: A

contingency approach. Journal of Organization Behaviour, 36,920-936

[4] Bloona, R. (2007). Coping with stress in a changing world. New York: McGraw Hill

[5] Cole, G. A. (2005). Organizational behaviour. London: Thomas Learning

[6] Coleman, V. (1998). Stress Management Techniques, Managing for Healthy Profits. London: Mercury Books.

[7] Earnshaw, J. & Morrison, L. (2001). Should Employees Worry? – Workplace stress claims following the John

Walker decision, Personal Review, 3(4)

[8] Elogovan A. R. (2001). Casual ordering of stress, satisfaction and commitment: a structural equation analysis.

Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 22(4)

[9] Hancock, P. A., & Desmond, P. A. (2001). Stress, workload, and fatigue. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

[10] Hendel, D. D. & Horn, A. S. (2008). The relationship between academic life conditions and perceived sources of

faculty stress over time. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 17(1/2): 61-68

[11] Imtiaz, S. & Ahmad, S. (2009). Impact of employee productivity, performance and turnover. International Review of

Business Papers. Retrievewed from http://www.docstoc.com on 6th

January 2017

[12] Ivancevich, J., Konapske, R. & Matteson, M. (2006). Organizational behaviour and management. New York:

McGraw Hill.

[13] Jex, S. M. (1998). Stress and job performance: Theory, research, and implications for managerial practice.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

[14] Kennedy, B., Homant, R., Homant, M. (2004). Perceptions of injustice as a Predictor of support for Workplace

Aggression. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18, 323-336

[15] Lambert, V., Lambert, C & Ito, M. (2004). Workplace stressor, ways of coping and demographic characteristics as

predictors of physical and mental health. International Journal of Nursing Studies.

[16] Levenstein, C., & Wooding, J. (1997). Work, health, and environment: Old problems, new solutions. New York:

Guilford Press

[17] Munali, J. (2005). Stress and individual performance of workers in hotels at the Kenyan coast. (Unpublished

Doctoral Dissertation). Thesis. Andra Pradesh Open University, Hyderbad state, India.

ISSN 2394-966X



[18] Nelson, D. L., & Burke, R. J. (2002). Gender, work stress, and health. Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.

[19] Newstroom, J. (2007). Organizational behaviour: human behaviour at work. New York: McGraw Hill.

[20] O’Donnell, M. P., & Harris, J. S. (1994). Health Promotion in the Workplace. Albany, NY: Delmar.

[21] Ngeno, G. (2007). Causes of burnout among primary school teachers within Kericho Municipality, Kenya. Journal

of Technology and Education in Nigeria, 12(2).

[22] Ongori, H. & Agolla, J. E. (2008). Occupational stress in organizations and its effects on organizational

performance. Journal of Management Research 8(3), 120-135.

[23] Philips, M., Campbell, N. & Morrison, C. (2000). Work and family: Satisfaction, stress and spousal support. Journal

of Employment counseling, 37(16-30).

[24] Quick, J. C., & Tetrick, L. E. (2003). Handbook of occupational health psychology. Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

[25] Robbins, S. & Judge, T. (2007). Organizational Behaviour. New Jersey: Pearson Education.

[26] Salami, S. & Omole, O.A. (2005). Participation in decision making processes, incentives and training predictors of

organizational commitment. African Journal for the Psychology Study of Social Issues, 8(2).

[27] Sayeed, O. M. (2001). Organizational commitment and conflict. New Ddelhi: Sage Publishers.

[28] Selye, H. (1956). The stress of life. New York: McGraw Hill

[29] Zalaquett, C. P., & Wood, R. J. (1997). Evaluating stress: A book of resources. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press

CAUSES OF OCCUPATIONAL STRESS AMONG PUBLIC OFFICERS …

Documents

Transcript of CAUSES OF OCCUPATIONAL STRESS AMONG PUBLIC OFFICERS …